Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
--Michael Snow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Snow wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
Magistrates was exactly what I thinking when I read the proposal for the "next level down".
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
I'd been hoping for a long time that the position of adminship would be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism, ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such an unrewarding process.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Agreed. If we can't trust admins, who *can* we trust?
- -- Alphax
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jack Lynch wrote:
I'd been hoping for a long time that the position of adminship would be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism, ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such an unrewarding process.
Oh, so you would rather that we let everyone vandalise and edit war without restraint?
If RfA is a popularity contest, how did the people that "won" get so popular in the first place?
And while we're at it, are you in the habit of conducting "experiments" to press admins's buttons, to see just how much crap they are willing to tolerate?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
You have flawed notion that admins don't vandalize or edit war, and that anons and layusers don't step in and correct such abuses.
Sometimes they get popular by sharing the same socio-political paradigm. Sometimes they get that way by being boring, and not having been involved in conflict. MOST often they get that way the same way people get popular in school, by chatting alot, and making friends. Which of these shows their inherent abilities as adjudicators?
As to this last, I suppose your trolling? Suggestions like that underscore why an clique of net-friends should not have a monopoly on the reigns of power here.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Jack Lynch wrote:
I'd been hoping for a long time that the position of adminship would be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism, ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such an unrewarding process.
Oh, so you would rather that we let everyone vandalise and edit war without restraint?
If RfA is a popularity contest, how did the people that "won" get so popular in the first place?
And while we're at it, are you in the habit of conducting "experiments" to press admins's buttons, to see just how much crap they are willing to tolerate?
Alphax | /"\
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jack Lynch wrote:
You have flawed notion that admins don't vandalize or edit war, and that anons and layusers don't step in and correct such abuses.
I never said that they *don't* - that's what RfC and Arbcom are for.
Sometimes they get popular by sharing the same socio-political paradigm. Sometimes they get that way by being boring, and not having been involved in conflict. MOST often they get that way the same way people get popular in school, by chatting alot, and making friends. Which of these shows their inherent abilities as adjudicators?
I would have said that they get popular based on the quality of their skills in contributing to the encyclopedia.
As to this last, I suppose your trolling? Suggestions like that underscore why an clique of net-friends should not have a monopoly on the reigns of power here.
I could ask you the same thing - your attitudes towards admins seem remarkably similar to those of one particularly notorious troll who claimed to be "experimenting" to prove their hypothesis that "admins are evil".
"Power to the people" is a great idea, until you realise that "the people" are idiots.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Without those ordinary "idiots" you wouldn't have an encyclopedia to play in. Your resort to an ad hominem (and an absurd and unresearched one at that, how about you look into me and who I am before making attacks) clarifies the quality of your argument.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/6/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jack Lynch wrote:
You have flawed notion that admins don't vandalize or edit war, and that anons and layusers don't step in and correct such abuses.
I never said that they *don't* - that's what RfC and Arbcom are for.
Sometimes they get popular by sharing the same socio-political paradigm. Sometimes they get that way by being boring, and not having been involved in conflict. MOST often they get that way the same way people get popular in school, by chatting alot, and making friends. Which of these shows their inherent abilities as adjudicators?
I would have said that they get popular based on the quality of their skills in contributing to the encyclopedia.
As to this last, I suppose your trolling? Suggestions like that underscore why an clique of net-friends should not have a monopoly on the reigns of power here.
I could ask you the same thing - your attitudes towards admins seem remarkably similar to those of one particularly notorious troll who claimed to be "experimenting" to prove their hypothesis that "admins are evil".
"Power to the people" is a great idea, until you realise that "the people" are idiots.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ0Tui7MAAH8MeUlWAQjv4Af9FFTDGe++j+DbpQNXUCeC2ZEgz4ThKcDE O1fKdC8Lb0s6x2EPiNiJnpUbuYrQDGS7joofJPuy0HbJtscfqX7VurSX18qt9z++ VP75jp7wN20UXx7YdO6rWOnVl8chBgSFjN/on+ZbSdy2xMXNLhu3cZlxSBLBsSy6 1tYNtstFahkRjzkMHsf93oMThiBNT75sG8jaNKAMWmYE9ehkKpa2gc1egABjLSHs znVCHtymrYK1EVOLiyp83o6IYDIW2d0ettIkLvDiFuUx7gz3wUafLhVn4RCpGJu+ mTZuz1Y0K5xnnzm9rXX8QNFmUblbX4dyl3OCSKMnWpyLiLk+lPRQcQ== =0w7z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jack Lynch wrote:
Without those ordinary "idiots" you wouldn't have an encyclopedia to play in.
No, it'd just be a lot less idiotic.
Your resort to an ad hominem (and an absurd and unresearched one at that, how about you look into me and who I am before making attacks)
No, that would be making an ad hominem attack; I was addressing your statment that:
Jack Lynch wrote:
I'd been hoping for a long time that the position of adminship would be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism, ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such an unrewarding process.
You want adminship done away with. You claim that admins have too much power and not enough accountability. There is a troll who claimed exactly the same thing, and conducted a series of "experiments" to try and prove their point. I was just wondering if you knew each other.
You decided to call me a troll.
I was also addressing your statement that RfA was a popularity contest. It's more like a sanity check.
clarifies the quality of your argument.
As does your argument.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
May I suggest they be called administrators and that they be selected in the same way they always have been. Some of our existing administrators will find this work productive, many will not. One caveat, if someone signs up for a case and does not participate significantly everyone else should not have to wait and wait and wait.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:43 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l